Talk:Argos Rho
Milky Way Well, since this has been moved to the Milky Way now, this talk page is sorta non-helpful. But since it's linked in other stuff, I may as well point people towards the new stuff. Go check out Talk:Milky Way, Talk:Newton, and what remains relevant below to get a sense of the whole Galaxy/Cluster/System/Planet conversation :-) --TarkisFlux 03:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC) why i done it I have no idea if these changes will be well received or not, but I got tired of clicking through several pages just to get an idea of what was in the cluster. Here's hoping others agree with me and this isn't just reverted... --TarkisFlux 02:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC) : The only reason I disagree with what you did is that if all the planets are put on the systems page such as here (why I did it) and then put all systems on a cluster - pages will become overloaded. Bypassing systems to the cluster page creates this issue. Because the game let's you view a whole system at a time I believe it's most appropriate to combine at the system and not the cluster level. --avfanatic (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC) ::I think that you have a simple outline of what the cluster & system has included in it, and then details on the individual planets only if necessary -- basically if you land there. There are a good amount of systems & clusters in the game, by separating out everything by system instead of cluster i don't think we gain anything, just add additional depth you have to navigate to get to the information you're looking for. xyrth 04:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC) :::You wouldn't include info given by the game on planets you can't land on (e.g. Jupiter)? --avfanatic (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC) :I agree with you that pages will quickly become overloaded if we put complete descriptions of the planets on the page, but I never intended the planet descriptions to sit on the cluster pages. I find that info interesting, but details of planets I can't interact with are hardly necessary for a guide so I saw no reason to expose it at this level. I set this up because I was tired of clicking through to systems, back to the cluster, then back to another system just to see what was in there. Milky Way, cluster, milky way, new cluster is much more managable, and doesn't overload the milky way page (or the cluster page, whichever winds up being used in the end). I had originally thought to just ignore the system level altogether and put the detailed descriptions in the planet entries themselves (since that was all I'd seen while looking around), but I think you're Newton entry (which I hadn't seen before I did this) is a better solution. It's just more detailed than I think necessary for most guide purposes. I think it's a great compliment to a quest focused cluster page at this level, but I don't think it's a replacement for it. I'll add the rest of my thoughts on it to it's talk page. --TarkisFlux 18:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC) What are your thoughts on pulling the planets out of the cluster pages, leaving each system with a link, ideally to a page like your Newton entry, leaving only landable planets/objects (and their link) and the assignments that can be completed/worked on in the systems entry? --TarkisFlux 18:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC) : Supposing the Newton model is adopted. I was thinking of three levels of map locations - galaxy and clusters / systems and minor planets / major planets. We direct all clusters to Milky Way with a short description, missions/assigments and links to systems pages (perhaps removing headings for systems, just in-paragraph wikilinks). The systems pages include all minor planets and then links to the one planet that can be landed upon. This would also follow the in-game map model of which transition requires a load screen. --avfanatic (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC) ::That's what I'm going for with this anyway, I'm just concerned about overloading the Milky Way page once you indicate which assignments (and which element types for the mineral survey) are found in which systems, though I'm sure a {tocright} would help. Willing to give it a go though, since it means even less clicking to find the summary info I want while playing. Not sure how I feel about removing the system headings... think I want to see it first...--TarkisFlux ::: Also I going to do a category-based location map because of the category structure that will allow people to easily navigate through subdirectories to any location - we'll redirect the category to the appropriate page. I did an example with Exodus Cluster and Widow and put it under Category: Milky Way map. And with a full map listing with all location planetary and up, that might alleviate concerns about the headings and without heading the Milky Way article should be less cluttered. --avfanatic (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Argos - source for name There are six places in ancient Greece and five fictional characters from Greek mythology that are named Argos. Among these characters, we have Odysseus' faithful dog and a one hundred-eyed giant. I am inclined to think the cluster is named after the giant in keeping with the place names for this cluster. However, this is speculation and I am disinclined to place this in the entry.Throwback 23:32, January 25, 2010 (UTC)